According to Australian newspaper the Herald Sun, Yalumba has quickly distanced itself from the controversial US National Rifle Association after it emerged that it was one of 20 Australian producers sold via the group’s wine club

So Yalumba was itself selling the wine, and donating part of the profit to the NRA? I would think not. It must be going on within the licensed distribution and retail system of the USA. Unless the NRA or its licensed designate has failed to pay for the product, I would think Yalumba would be opening itself up to legal action.

Sure they sell their wine to Negociants USA and Negociants USA will obviously sell to anyone but I can see why Yalumba would not want their product to be associated with the NRA much less help fund raise for them even though the path might be indirect.

I contacted d'Arenberg about this and they were unaware of any connection between their wines and the NRA Wine Club:

"d'Arenberg has no direct affiliation with the NRA and we were unaware that our wines are being sold by the NRA Wine Club for fundraising purposes. d'Arenberg exports to over 60 countries worldwide, and wine can go through various channels before it reaches the end customer."

[u]Sure they sell their wine to Negociants USA and Negociants USA will obviously sell to anyone but I can see why Yalumba would not want their product to be associated with the NRA much less help fund raise for them even though the path might be indirect.[/u]

I can't.....sometimes you have to stand up to what's right! and Yalumba dropped the ball!!!!

[u]Sure they sell their wine to Negociants USA and Negociants USA will obviously sell to anyone but I can see why Yalumba would not want their product to be associated with the NRA much less help fund raise for them even though the path might be indirect.[/u]

I can't.....sometimes you have to stand up to what's right! and Yalumba dropped the ball!!!!

How so, Drew?

If they sold to Necociant and Negociant sold it to someone else,how did d'Arenberg drop the ball?

Once d'Arenberg sold their wine, it ceased to be their property. Negociant had the right to sell it to some other company (as long as there was no law preventing it), and that company had the right to do what they wished with it----it had become their property.

When a winery makes an agreement with a distributor/wholesaler, the winery agrees to sell the wine to the wholesaler. Then it legally becomes the wholesaler's property. Agreements are usually drawn up so the winery still has say in how the wine is marketed, but not always.

Same thing for retailers: once a wholesaler sells you the wine, he can't legally restrain you from doing whatever you wish with it. When I was in marketing, believe me, I begged and pleaded at times with retailers who had decided to drop the price of one of my wines as a "loss leader" because I didn't want the price perception of the wine to be debased. But there was no way for me to constrain the retailer if that was what he wanted to do.

I don't understand how d'Arenberg is different here. Once they are sold they're not d'Arenberg's property any longer.

They dropped the ball by entering into a political position that they have absolutly no control or interest in. I can be a member/officer of the "Destroy Australia" club and purchase their Australian wines to raffle off with a portion of the profits going to my club and they can't do anything about it. I'll bet that there are hundreds of recipients of monies generated by sales of their wines that they wouldn't directly support because of philosophical position so what's the real reason they've come forward with this statement?

Drew Hall wrote:They dropped the ball by entering into a political position that they have absolutly no control or interest in.

I think they obviously have an interest, since they've weighed in and they are trying to control inasmuch as they can. I would hope that as a producer I would have some sort of relationship with the importer (and distributors) that I work so I might have some influence in a situation like this.

Drew Hall wrote:They dropped the ball by entering into a political position that they have absolutly no control or interest in.

I think they obviously have an interest, since they've weighed in and they are trying to control inasmuch as they can. I would hope that as a producer I would have some sort of relationship with the importer (and distributors) that I work so I might have some influence in a situation like this.

They may be "interested" but they don't have an interest once the wine has been bought...that's what I'm trying to say.

There are couple of confusing and disturbing comments above. Hoke's got it mostly spot on (I believe his reference to d'Arenberg, should actually read Yalumba). How can a wine producer control where their product ultimately ends up and who benefits from its resale? All that can be done is to distance oneself in due course, as is the case here.

And far as I am concerned, good on Yalumba for taking a public stance against the NRA. Robert Hill-Smith should not be condemned or boycotted for taking the moral high ground on one of the most significant issues facing America and the world today (i.e. the implementation of effective gun control laws).

Carl - do I deduce that by boycotting Yalumba, you are a supporter of the NRA? If not, why the boycott?

Perhaps a few others might like do a rethink/rehash on what they've posted.

Last edited by David Lole on Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

David Lole said: Perhaps a few others might like do a rethink/rehash on what they've posted.

David, what's been so disturbing of others postings?

Nothing "so" disturbing, Drew.

Everyone can read what is written and I can assure you my views do not allign with what you have written. It is what democracy and pluralism is built on and what I see as justifiable corporate responsibility. I just wish more would do it.